Oirat translation of the “Sutra of eight luminous of heaven and earth”: textual analysis within the framework of creating a parallel text corpora

The paper examines the Oirat translation of one of the popular sutras of Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism - the “Sutra of Eight Luminous of Heaven and Earth”, widely known as “Naiman Gegeen” sutra. It was translated in the first half of the 17th century by Jaya-pandita Nam-mkha’ rgya-mtsho (1599-1662), a person who elaborated one of graphic systems of Mongolian peoples which is known as “Clear Script” (Oir. todo bichig). Within the framework of comparative analysis, the author has also used texts from the Tibetan and Mongolian versions of the sutra to characterize the specific features of Jaya-pandita’s translation technique. The analysis of the Oirat translation of the “Sutra of Eight Luminous” shows that Jaya-pandita actively employed the calquing translation method of to convey Tibetan proper names and terms. This approach not only pertains to the technical aspects of the translation process but also highlights the cultural links between the Buddhist traditions of Tibet and the Mongolian peoples. Furthermore, Jaya-pandita’s use of literal translation techniques allowed to restore certain names absent in Tibetan version of the sutra based on the Oirat text. In his efforts to reflect both the phonetics and meaning of the original Tibetan form, the translator occasionally resorted to the transcription or transliteration of Tibetan words, as well as to their combination with literal translation when equivalents in the target language were only partially available. Despite the clear adherence to the Tibetan text, in some cases, Jaya-pandita retained basic terms of Sanskrit, Sogdian and Uighur origin, without substituting them with calques or borrowings from Tibetan. A comparison with the Mongolian version of the sutra shows that Jaya-pandita aimed to create an independent terminology, distinct from the Mongolian, thereby strengthening his cultural and linguistic identity in the context of Buddhist textual creation. In conclusion, the article provides two lists of the names of eight great bodhisattvas, which may be useful for further work on the systematization of Buddhist terminology in the Russian language, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of Buddhist tradition and its diversity.